PRO FOOTBALL; Panel Says Drug Policy Favored Top-Tier Stars

An investigation into the National Football League's drug policy by a Senate caucus on drug control found indications that the league at one time practiced a policy of allowing star players to escape punishment from failed drug tests while lower-tier players did not.

But it also determined that such a double standard most likely no longer exists.

The investigation, according to people familiar with it, concluded that such a double standard may have been applied in at least several instances, some within the past four or five years; evidence strongly indicated that some of the league's best players failed drug tests, but were not punished, because of their high profile status. Meanwhile, lower-level players were readily punished.

However, there is no conclusive evidence such practices now exist, those people said.

The inquiry, conducted by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, was begun after an article in The New York Times last September reported on the double standard. The article said that videotapes of a 1995 National Football League Players Association meeting showed a high-ranking union leader saying a number of players were not punished for violating the league's substance abuse policy. The N.F.L. later confirmed that 16 players fell into that category.

The league said the players were not suspended as a concession to the union during negotiations for a stronger drug-testing policy, which was enacted several years later.

A league official said that while the players ''got a break,'' they were still monitored and tested under the new, more comprehensive agreement. The N.F.L.'s current policy is believed to be the toughest in sports.

Still, the impression was that the league was compromising its standards on drug use in order to secure a new collective bargaining agreement with the union. There were other questions: Who were the players who failed the test? Did the league look the other way because some of the players who failed the tests were high-profile ones?

Those were some of the questions the inquiry looked into, using three Senate investigators, who first viewed the tapes in their entirety, and then interviewed dozens of people, including N.F.L. officials, current and former players, and others.

The investigation took more than six months, mainly because there were some current N.F.L. players and officials who wanted to wait until the end of the regular season before being interviewed.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

''The Senate caucus has completed its look into whether or not there is an informal practice that excuses some N.F.L. players from the league's anti-drug policy,'' Grassley said in a statement. ''I wanted to make sure that we didn't ignore issues raised about double standards.

''While there are indications that a double standard may have existed in the past, allegations that the drug testing policy today is biased have not been substantiated.''

The statement concluded: ''The league, the players, and the players union all recognize the value of a drug-free workplace. The drug testing policy that the N.F.L. has in place today promotes and enforces this standard. It's a good faith effort to have a standard that is tough and fair.''

Grassley's examination should bring to an end what was an awkward period for the N.F.L. and the union, in which accusations of a biased and flawed drug testing program angered football officials.

The decision not to suspend the 16 players was a controversial one even within professional football's inner circle.

Several owners said they voiced strong disapproval of any deal that would have allowed players to go unpunished and recently reiterated those concerns.